The subject of drugs and drug-testing, subject of recent reports by Matt Rudy for Golf Digest and Ron Sirak for Golf World, came up again Tuesday at Peter Dawson's press conference--where Dawson announced that the R&A would not begin testing at this year's British. This followed the recent announcement by the Tour that it would postpone testing for a year. For interesting give and take on the question, see Geoff Shackelford today. But the spiciest thing to come of this week's announcement was Lawrence Donegan's Guardian blog entitled "Time for golf to stop being so naive":

Professional golfers take drugs. I know this because drug use is pervasive in society as a whole and professional golfers are part of that wider society. I know it because I have heard numerous tales about golfers using drugs. But mostly I know it because I once saw a professional golfer smoke a joint on the course during a European tour event - the Dutch Open, wouldn't you just know.

So when the endless litany of self-deluded authority figures in the game step up to the microphone to declare there are no drugs in golf, it is fair to assume they are talking codswallop. Eventually, the absurdity of what these authority figures were saying dawned on those who were saying it and they conceded that golf would have to come into line with other sports and introduce drug testing.

Hang on. I got the part about self-deluded, but did you say something about a doobie at the Dutch?

Which brings us to the question of what drugs should be tested for, a theme of the Golf World report, and a question close to the heart of the players. As in other sports, there's not consensus on which drugs enhance and which just, well, get you through. (Can you imagine if they tested for marijuana in the NBA?) For now recreation drugs are on the list. But will they stay there?

--Bob Carney

Reader Gary McCormick of San Jose, California, writes lovingly of Dan Jenkins.

Dear Mr. Jenkins, I just learned that you have a new book coming out. I have pre-ordered "The Franchise Babe" and am counting the days 'til it hits my doorstep.

Not that I get tired of re-reading "Dead Solid Perfect", "The Money-Whipped Steer-Job Three-Jack Give-Up Artist" (could you have made that title any longer?) or "Slim and None" mind you, but new words from your geezer-codger typewriter are always welcome, whether the subject is golf, football, sportswriting (I love Jim Tom Pinch), or just plain people.

I have to tell you (without taking through all 18 holes, so to speak) that you shaped my entry into the world of golf and have influenced my views and outlook on the game for over two decades....

Through your work I have come to know Ben Hogan, Byron Nelson, Bobby Jones and the rest of the varied panoply of the world of golf. I have especially come to admire and respect the life and career of Ben Hogan, whose dedication to the purity of the game is, I believe, second to none in the history of sport. The more I read your work, the more I regret my grandfather ever moved the family out of Texas!

Thanks for being there to educate and entertain us.

Gary, that move to California has nurtured your family. You've learned to share, to express your emotions and that's a good thing. But please don't call Dan a geezer-codger.

--Bob Carney

Dick Carver of Clifton, Virginia, is another reader who takes exception to our "How Green is Golf?" package. He brings up a provocative piece by Patrick Michaels in the Wall Street Journal.

I have been a golfer since I was twelve, and it has remained a real important part of my life. I personally believe Golf has an obligation to always maintain the environment.

However, I am disappointed in teh "advocates" you chose to make the case for the issues related to the current condition of our environment and the steps everyone in the golfing world need to take as a commitment to our Earth. In the April 18 edition of the Wall Street Journal is an op-ed by Professor Patrick Michaels, who is a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. John Barton should have begun by talking to people like Professor Michaels instead of people with little science background, who promote the anecdotal approach to the current claims about global warming.

As Professor Michaels points out, these problems, including the role of golf, need to be based on honest, scientific examination, not "political concepts.

I recommend the Michaels piece. From his conclusion:

There's a photograph in the journal "Arctic," published in 1953 by R.H. Katz, captioned "River disappearing in 40-foot deep gorge," on Greenland's Adolf Hoels Glacier. It's all there in the open literature, but apparently that's too inconvenient to bring up. Greenland didn't shed its ice then. There was no acceleration of the rise in sea level.

Finally, no one seems to want to discuss that for millennia after the end of the last ice age, the Eurasian arctic was several degrees warmer in summer (when ice melts) than it is now. We know this because trees are buried in areas that are now too cold to support them. Back then, the forest extended all the way to the Arctic Ocean, which is now completely surrounded by tundra. If it was warmer for such a long period, why didn't Greenland shed its ice?

This prompts the ultimate question: Why is the news on global warming always bad? Perhaps because there's little incentive to look at things the other way. If you do, you're liable to be pilloried by your colleagues. If global warming isn't such a threat, who needs all that funding? Who needs the army of policy wonks crawling around the world with bold plans to stop climate change?

But as we face the threat of massive energy taxes ⿿ raised by perceptions of increasing rates of warming and the sudden loss of Greenland's ice ⿿ we should be talking about reality.

--Bob Carney

Ontario, Canada, reader Cam Pettit writes with an interesting idea, inspired by his reading of the Jay Feldman and Mike Hurdzan interviews in John Barton's How Green is Golf ? article in the May issue. Feldman, who directs Beyond Pesticides (beyondpesticides.org), told Barton:

The problem is, when you spray pesticides, they tend to move off the target site. The U.S. Geological put out a report in 2006 that looked at waters and streams and lakes in teh U.S. and found pesticides everywhere they looked. The typical response you get from superintendents is taht they're using registered pesticide products, they're using them in compliance with the lable, their pesticide applicators are trained and certified, so what's the problem? But there are clear deficiencies in the regulatory process in evaluating the full body of health outocomes that we're concerned about....

I'm pleased with the messages that both he and Mike Hurdzan are promoting and that there are people looking at making golf more eco-friendly. In an effort to reduce water consumption and chemical use on the golf course, I'd like to issue the following challenge to golf courses: Make one hole on your course (or an entire nine) eco-friendly; no inorganic pesticides or fertilizers and limited watering (greens and tee decks at a maximum). Offer a feedback form for guests who've played the eco-friendly section of the course and see what they thought of the conditioning and playability of the respective hole(s). Along those lines, Golf Digest could get involved with the governing bodies to standardize the form such that results could be used in further discussions of how to make golf more eco-friendly. For me, knowing that I'm playing on an eco-friendly course would help my conscience and dare I say it....possibly even help my game.

--Bob Carney

Without about a week to go in the voting, our U.S. Open contest has surpassed 100,000 ballots.

The contest will give one of five finalists--selected from almost 60,000 entrants--the opportunity to play Torrey Pines just days before the U.S. Open, under Open conditions, from the Open tees, with NBC's Matt Lauer, Dallas Cowboy quarterback Tony Romo and actor/singer Justin Timberlake. The challenge: prove that an average golfer about 10 handicap can break 100 on an Open venue.

Right now, clear leader is Omaha sales rep John Atkinson, who has a handicap index of 8.0, which translates at Torrey to the 10-handicap amateur Tiger referred to when he said last year a 10 could not break 100 on the Open course at Oakmont.

We'll find out on June 6 in San Diego.

--Bob Carney

It was beginning to look like our readership was a whole lot more intransigent on environmental issues than we thought--previous posts and responses on the subject here--but a poll this week on our web site suggests otherwise.

We asked: In order to conserve water, would you be willing to play on brown grass during periods of low rainfall? Yes or No

Results mid-afternoon today, with about 300 responses:

Yes: 64.91%
No: 35.09%

Not exactly radical, but responsible for sure...Meanwhile, you'll find some interesting discussion on our Golf and the Environment forum.

--Bob Carney

Just when we'd thought we made a convincing case that new course conditions at Augusta, given the right weather, will produce the requisite scores and roars, here comes a letter from Mick Herron, Director of Golf and General Manager at Bay Pointe CC in Onset, Massachusetts, telling us we're all wet and praising John Hawkins report in Golf World:

Finally! John Hawkins opening line of his superb piece on the '08 Masters perfectly describes my frustrations the past two years - "the world's greatest golf tournament is no longer the world's greatest golf tournament...."

As a long time PGA club professional I took advantage of the incredible hospitality of the members of Augusta National by attending the '98 (the year of Matt Kuchar!) Masters. Managing to finally return in '07 I camped out at my favorite spot borne from my debut.....alongside the 15th green. I arrived there with my brother (his first Masters at age 60), prepping him for what was about to happen--i.e., trainwrecks, eagle roars, knife-edge short game tests and the like. Well, we sat there for literally 3 hours and witnessed a procession of 70-80 yard wedge shots from 50 consecutive players. Just one young amateur rookie tried to reach in two during this funeral march.

We got up from our once precious seats wandering directionless toward--I forget! I cursed the powers that be for screwing with the powers that once were - they totally did not get it! I waited for confirmation from Hawkins, Diaz, et.al. but to no avail. Now that '08 duplicated the boring '07 version we are finally seeing across the board the journalistic accuracy depicting how a small group of men (and just possibly one man - F. Ridley) transformed what was once the absolute best sporting event into a joke. Can Mr. Ridley hear Bobby Jones & Clifford Roberts screaming right now? We all know they are aware of their drastic mistakes - why would they backtrack on some "changes" to the 11th this year. To John Hawkins and all the other "courageous" golf writers in our community who have "come out of the closet", I say....finally!

Lastly, I contend that the present day Augusta National, if not changed back, will forever produce winners (and worthy they are, no doubt) like Zach Johnson, and the Trevor Immelmans of the world. Not only was Tiger not totally interested, nor were many of us who look forward to this event for months in advance. A true shame.

Mike, that's a strong letter. (I won't pass it on to Zach or Trevor). Just one thing: Tiger Woods could be wearing his sixth green jacket this month, had he made a few putts. He had his chances in both '07 and '08. And had he made those charges, the roars would have been unforgettable, and I'm not sure you'd be writing.

--Bob Carney

Some of us thought perhaps we'd watched a different tournament when post-Masters reports called the it boring and decried the loss of roars post course-alteration. Players--Tiger included--were happy to cooperate with these reports, calling the course just "too tough" and the tournament "more like a U.S. Open." We heard from some of you, readers, too, saying you thought the Masters had lost its Sunday magic.

Here are two reports that challenge that conventional wisdom. First, David Barrett on Golfobserver.com:

OK, if I read one more story about how this was the second straight dull Sunday at the Masters, I'm going to scream.

For the first three days, there were plenty of red numbers on the scoreboard. Trevor Immelman had three rounds in the 60s on the way to an 11-under 205 total through 54 holes--a total that has been bettered only four times in the last 28 years and eight times in the history of the Masters. The cut came at 147, the lowest since 2002.

The greens were reasonably receptive as the course remained in the same condition as on Wedneday when Masters chairman Billy Payne said it was playing just the way Augusta wanted it. Then on Sunday, the winds came and scoring became difficult. Hey, it happens.

The AP's Doug Ferguson takes a similar tack.

Remember, it was only a year ago when Jim Nantz produced a colorized version of Arnold Palmer’s victory in the 1960 Masters. Palmer didn’t birdie either of the par 5s on the back nine, but rallied with a 30-foot birdie on the 17th and a 6-iron to 6 feet on the final hole.

He closed with a 70.

One final thought: Woods missed a 5-foot birdie putt on the 13th, failed to get up-and-down for birdie on the 15th (not the easiest chip), missed a 12-foot birdie on the 16th and three-putted for bogey on the 14th. Convert all those and he shoots 68, coming from six shots behind to the win his fifth green jacket.

Still a boring Masters?

Couldn't agree more. And even without Tiger making those putts, we watched every shot. For the past two years, despite the weather, there has been the potential for a spectacular come-from-behind finish by the world's best golfer. The fact that he didn't make that charge is not the fault of the course. And had he done it, we'd be talking about the prospects of a Slam--and one of the most exciting Masters ever.

--Bob Carney

I love this letter from Stewart Thomson of Newport Beach, California. In it he reports on a pre-test of the whole US Open contest: Can a 10-handicap golfer break 100 on the Open course under Open conditions?

Like several contestants in the US Open contest, Stewart offered, in his essay, to make a contribution to charity (Tiger Woods Foundation) for every stroke over 100, if he were the Average Joe picked to play Torrey Pines. Though not chosen as a finalist, he decided to determine just how much he would have spent by going to Torrey Pines and playing the course. Here's his report:

Thank you for not picking my entry, where I pledged $1,000 to the Tiger Woods Foundation for every stroke over 100.  I thought this would cost me about $10,000 and after playing TP South yesterday with our club's Senior Group, I believe you saved me some money!

I maintain that a 10-handicap player will not break 100.  Our tournament rules yesterday were white tees (1,000 yards less than the black tees), ESC to speed up play, and if a ball is lost in the rough, drop a ball, so the conditions were far from the official rules.  My group was a 7, 9, 10 and 13 handicap and we shot 86, 86, 98 and 98 respectively.  Except for the 9, we all lost balls in the rough, although I expect you will have spotters and caddies to help for searches, which we did not have.  Also, the rough was more penal than it will be for the Open as the USGA is letting the rough grow longer now, so that they can cut it to even heights before the tournament.  Lastly, the greens were not as fast as they will be in June.

Based on yesterday's play, our 9, who hit a very straight ball and probably only was saved one or two strokes by ESC, would be closest to your standard, but in my estimation would not break 100 under your playing rules.  Based on his play yesterday, it would be very close.  The secret key is to stay out of the rough, which he did on all but 4 holes.

I appreciate the difficulty in your selecting the five finalists, but to be fair, a 4.7, 6.4 and someone without an index do not qualify, in my opinion, so I have voted for John and I hope he wins, although he will be very disappointed when he hits his 100th stroke on 17!

Interesting comment about your choice among the finalists. John Atkinson is leading by a considerable margin at this point. John's popularity is certainly due in part to his brave fight against cancer and the wonderfully positive approach he's taken to talking about it. But I'm coming to believe that another reason people have voted for John is that his handicap is closest to the 10 to which Tiger referred when he said a 10 couldn't break 100 at last year's Open course. John's course handicap, were he to be chosen, would be more than 10, actually; probably 11 or 12.

For the record, all of the finalists have handicaps. We estimate their Torrey Pines course handicaps will range from 8 for Erik Norton and Matt Rice to 12 for Phil Dembure and John Atkinson. The precise number will depend on the rating of the course in Open condition, which will happen soon.

Thanks for the detailed report, Stewart. And, um, feel free to make that contribution anyway....

--Bob Carney
 

Interesting note from Michael Morris of Santa Rosa on the How Green is Golf? story by John Barton in the May issue. The story has generated tons of comment, much of it suprisingly negative, but Michael supports one of our suggestions in particular.

Your advice to reduce golf’s environmental impact include walking instead of taking a cart.  I prefer to do just that, but some people in the US just don’t get it.  When my son and I were in Florida over the holidays, not one course would let us walk!  And that includes the PGA Golf Club in Port St. Lucie.  Combine that with a ‘cart path only’ policy and you get five or six hour rounds.  Funny, two years ago in Scotland we walked every time, and all rounds were under four hours except at Kingsbarns where most of the golfers were American, in carts, and playing at a six hour pace.  Walking isn’t just a good way to reduce consumption of expensive gas and electricity, it could solve the problem of slow play and expand the appeal of the game to those who don’t have time to spend all day at a course.

Michael, thanks. Because I know how much the PGA is promoting all kinds of golf, on foot or on wheels, we called PGA Golf Club and they told us we were free to walk, but we would pay the same fee as we would if we took a cart, i.e., the cart fee was inseparable. (In my view, given the courses there, still a bargain).

Geoff Shackelford mentions the story in his blog today and the comments are lively.
 
--Bob Carney